I. THE SUBJECT
41. Argumentation Distinguished from Exposition. —Argumentation differs from exposition in its object, though not necessarily in its method. A real-estate agent sends us a circular describing the situation and prospects of a newly laid out town. In a sense it is an exposition; but we read between the lines an invitation to purchase land in this highly desirable location: the exposition is virtually a circular of advice. We become interested in the matter and investigate, until, finding some objections to the lots we are considering, we express certain doubts as to their desirability for our purposes. The agent's reply is now clear argument, with definite points to prove, on a subject that admits of two opinions. He may even, besides trying to prove the truth of his position, go a step further and try to persuade us to buy, urging all the advantages of the purchase as incentives to dosing the bargain. It is Argumentation thus broadly interpreted, so broadly as to include Persuasion, that we wish to distinguish from Exposition. And we find the distinction in the purpose of the writer: if he is presenting information for the general interest in it, he is constructing an exposition; if he is trying to influence opinion or incite to action, his essay or speech is an argument. 42. Requirements of a Good Subject.—r. Personal Interest for the Writer.—Now to be able to argue well is a great advantage, for if we use our ability wisely we unquestionably widen the sphere of our personal influence. But this should not lead us to forget that soundness of judgment is a more valuable acquisition from the study of argument than is mere readiness in upholding opinions, and that if we practice arguing chiefly for the pleasure of "beating" our opponents, a habit of cheap, superficial thinking is most likely to result. If men of maturity and experience are cautious in coming to conclusions, students who have had less opportunity to observe need not feel that they must be ready to convince all corners on one side or the other of every question that may arise. There¬fore, it is a wise and healthy principle to avoid all subjects of argument on which the writer has not genuine convictions of his own, genuine because the reasons for them have come within his personal expe¬rience. 2. Two Sides.—Not every subject, however, which is familiar to us and in which we take a personal interest is necessarily a good subject for argument. We should make sure that it is a genuinely debatable subject, that it has, as we say, two sides. "That temperance is a_ virtue," and "That Shakespeare was a great poet," have been cited by a recent writer (Alden! The Art of Debate) as examples of obvious propositions about which there can be no real differ¬ence of opinion, and which, therefore, it would be idle to debate. 3. An Issue Capable of Proof.—Less suitable still is the class of subjects for which no demonstrable argu¬ments can be found, debate upon which comes down to a question of personal opinion alone. "That Franklin was a greater man than Lincoln" is such a subject; so is the proposition "That happiness increases with civilization." We can play with such subjects, and it is often agreeable to do so; but we cannot profitably try to prove anything about them. Clear, Accurate Wording.—Finally there is the ambiguously worded subject, and this must be most carefully guarded against. The noun may be too vaguely inclusive, as in the subject "That examina¬tions should be abolished." Not all examinations, surely, in school, college, the civil service, etc.! If it is meant that the college entrance examination system should be replaced by the recommendation system, that should be specifically stated in some such form. But then comes the question, Where—universally, or only in this country? For state institutions alone, or for all colleges and universities? The verb needs limiting. Even when we supply a limiting word, be it adjective or adverb, we must be sure that we secure accuracy of mailing. If we propose to argue "That late study should be discouraged by parents," how are we to interpret "late," when there are so many .degrees of lateness? Changing the phrase "late study" to "studying after ten P.m." would settle the matter at once. There are, moreover, certain words found frequently in questions of debate, that need to be watched narrowly. "That Chinese Exclusion is right" and "That Chinese Exclusion is expedient" are two wholly different questions. "Should" is a term to be suspicious of. "That newspapers should not print sensational stories of crime" is a subject in which much depends upon whether newspapers are to abstain under compulsion or not. These few ex¬amples will show well enough what sort of dangers must be avoided in the selection and wording of a subject. Common-sense precaution at this point will often save much loose, irrelevant reasoning later in the argument, or, in case of oral debate, unnecessary quibbling over the interpretation of the question.